Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.12

6.p1.12

śaktikalpanāyāmipi tulyānuyogitvāt | kathametāśśaktayo niyatādhārā napuṃravayameva śaktirvyāpnuvantīti | padārthasvarūpātiśayāditi cetkāryabhedo'pi tata eva setsyati | api cāśrayasya bhede kathaṃ śaktibhedaḥ ? yato vā śaktayaḥ prāptarūpabhedāstata evāśrayarūpabhedena kāryabhedasiddheḥ, kiṃ śaktibhedakalpanena ? yāstarhi tulyarūpā vyaktayaḥ kāryamatulyaṃ sādhayanti tāsu katham ? yathā---galvrathāścandrakāntibhiḥ syandante na sūryagrāvāṇaḥ, karakā arkoṃśubhirvilīyante na muktāmaṇayaḥ, āntaraṃ tejaḥ paśyati na brāhyam, prāṇo vāyuḥ prāṇini na vyānaḥ, śrotrākāśaśśṛṇoti na vaktrākāśaḥ. vidvān kriyāsvadhikriyate nāvidvāniti tulyājātīyatve'pi teṣāmadṛṣṭaphratiniyamo dravyāntarasaṃparkabhedaśca kāryabhedaṃ vyavasthāpayati | yāstasyābhinnābhimarthavyaktayaḥ kāryaṃ sādhayanti, tāsu kathaṃ ; yathā--tadeva tejo dahati prakāśayati śītaṃ cāpanudati tā evāpaḥ plāvayanti, klamaṃ cāpanayanti, tādṛśaḥ sa tejasaḥ payaso vā rupātiśayaḥ karmaṇā iva saṃyogavegavibhāgavegānukūlatā dharmasyeva sukhajñānāpavargakāraṇatvamiti | upādānaniyame tu na vāyamanyaṃ kaṃcidābhinavaṃ bhāvanāṃ kāryakāraṇabhāvamutpājadayāmaḥ | kintu yathāprāptamanusaranto vyavaharāmaḥ | tatra tailotpādapādapacchedāvanvayavyatirekābhyāṃ vṛddhavyavahārādvā tilaparaśvathādereva kāraṇatvamavagacchāma iti | tadeva tadarthina upādadmade, na sikatāpādukādīti | na ca tilādeḥ paraśvathādervā svarupe satyapi sadā kāryodayaḥ | svarūpavat sahakārisannidherapyapekṣaṇīyasya sarvadānupapatteḥ | sahakarivarge ca dharmādikamapi nipatati ;

This is because the same objection applies even if one posits capacities: how are these capacities confined to fixed substrates, and why do they not pervade everything as a single capacity? If [you reply] that it is due to an excellence in the intrinsic nature of the word-meaning, then the diversity of effects will be established from that very source alone. Moreover, when the substrate differs, how can there be a difference in capacities? Or, from whatever cause capacities acquire difference in form, from that very difference in the form of the substrate the difference of effects is established; what is the use of positing different capacities? If [you ask]: how is it in the case of individuals of equal form that bring about unequal effects? As for instance: moonstones ooze by the rays of the moon, but sun-stones do not; hailstones melt by the rays of the sun, but pearls do not; internal fiery light sees, but external light does not; the prāṇa wind breathes in a living being, but the vyāna wind does not; the space of the ear hears, but the space of the mouth does not; a learned man is entitled to rituals, but an unlearned man is not—even though they belong to the same genus, the restriction of unseen destiny and differences of contact with other substances determine the difference in effect. How is it in the case of those very individuals of meaning, identical in nature, that bring about diverse effects? As for instance: that very same fire burns, illuminates, and dispels cold; the very same water floods and removes fatigue. Such an excellence of form belongs to fire or water, just as an action's suitability to the speed of conjunction or the speed of disjunction [belongs to action], or just as righteousness is the cause of pleasure, knowledge, and liberation. But as for the restriction of material causes, we do not invent any novel causal relation among entities; rather, we conduct ourselves by following what is established. There, through positive and negative concomitance, or from the usage of elders, we understand that sesame seeds or an axe alone are the cause of producing oil or felling a tree. Therefore, one who desires that [result] takes up that very [cause], and not sand, sandals, and so on. Nor does the effect arise constantly even when the intrinsic nature of the sesame seeds or the axe is present, because the presence of auxiliary conditions, which is also required just like the intrinsic nature, cannot obtain at all times. And within the group of auxiliary conditions, righteousness and the like also fall;